Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8[a ban on same-sex marriage] when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress....

Actually, this isn't such an impressive list of names. It seems pretty pathetic to me.

[T]he presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Or it suggests Republican governors of New Jersey and Massachusetts aren't that conservative.

But then there's Huntsman:

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.

This is the first reference I've seen to Huntsman's article, and I'm constantly scanning the web for news stories, especially on the subject of same-sex marriage, especially with the Supreme Court decision pending. Why isn't Huntsman more influential? It's uncanny that this man, a former governor, very nice looking, doesn't get more play among conservatives. Here he is trying to tell conservatives what's conservative, and I don't have to read his article or any response to it to know that conservatives will reject what he's saying out of hand, designating him not a conservative.

But how about not rejecting it out of hand? Put aside your Huntsmanophobia for a moment. He connects marriage equality to free market capitalism:

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.

Adam Smith was not only an architect of the modern world of extraordinary economic opportunity, he was a moralist whose first book was The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The foundation of his thought was his insight that free markets and open commerce strengthened our moral fiber by reinforcing the community of shared and reciprocal economic interests. Government, he thought, had to be limited lest it be captured and corrupted by special business interests who wanted protection from competition and the reciprocal requirements of community.

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

I'd say that's a bit under-theorized. There's so much padding at the beginning of the article — Republicans need to win over the younger generation and so forth. The ending is a mishmash — a mere hint of an idea that might make sense. What does he say other than equality is good and free market capitalism is also good? There's this odd concession that law doesn't matter, because this is something that people are going to understand emotionally. Rather than make an "abstract" legal argument — why is law only abstract? — he appeals to emotion. You should be for equality because equality is the right principle. First of all, that's abstract. Secondly, the go-with-your-heart, emotion-is-the-answer approach is what leads so many people to oppose same-sex marriage.

The other argument seems to be that the economic issues are what's really important, so let's get this pesky marriage issue behind us so we can move on. People will "vote for free markets" if there are conditions of equality. That suggests that marriage equality is the kind of equality in the marketplace that Adam Smith was talking about. Is it? Maybe, but Huntsman doesn't even attempt to connect that all up. As I said: under-theorized. That's my abstract legalistic view and my from-the-heart emotional view.

These wishy washy Republicans will never understand that the Left uses SSM as a shield behind which it advances in its constant attack on Western Civilization. The most important political struggle right now is between RINO's and the Tea Party for control of the Republican Party. If the Tea Party wins there will finally be a force in opposition to the horrible assault on what the Left calls bourgeois values. If the RINO's win, a greater likelihood, the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs and an opposition party will be born. But make no mistake, the fight will go on. The notion the Left has that it can ram its filth down our throats to the point of unconditional surrender is pure fantasy.

One idea is simply this: if the federal government can define interpersonal relationships, then why not just define all affectionate and compassionate cohabitations as common law marriage after 5 years? Why does it have to be just hetero breeders or gay/lesbian fornicators? Why does it have to be the word "marriage" only? I mean if we're about redefining words and concepts to suit individual agendas, why not go whole frigging hog? You know like wobbly ole Justice Roberts on penalty versus tax [the distinction that even the IRS has so far refused to recognize]?

On not. I don't give a shit.

I'm done now. have to be...some superficial ignorant asshole shortly will compare the effort to gain LGBT marraige "rights" to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and it will piss me off and ruin my day.

If this narrow interest effort succeeds, how long will it be until the LGBT community demands they, once married, be exempt from the marriage penalty aspects of the tax code and IRS interpretation...based on the fact they cannot procreate and thus there is no reason for the concept of household income?

Oh, this quote is rolling around: "...the go-with-your-heart, emotion-is-the-answer approach is what leads so many people to oppose same-sex marriage."

Both sides have a problem here. People opposed to SSM have to face their own illiberalism and anti-individualism (why not let people do what they want?). People in favor of SSM have to face their illiberalism and anti-individualism (it's not about SSM for individuals, but about forcing society to accept SSM).

Huntsman is on the right track. It's a cultural challenge. If the culture approves of SSM (it doesn't yet), it will probably move to recognize it legally, or else take the government out of the marriage game (unlikely).

Hopefully they find the genetic basis of homosexuality soon and develop a way to prevent or cure it, and the whole issue will disappear.

If not, then using this logic of "equality is the highest value" we need to extend "marriage" rights to people who want to marry their siblings or parents or pets, to "group" marriages, etc. Because to deny them the ability to "marry" would be to deny them their freedom and individuality.

Meanwhile, we can expect increasing evidence as time passes that the children adopted/created by homosexual pairings experience various sorts of harm from not being raised in a normal environment. And adoptions will dwindle as the harms that reasonable people can intuit would occur for children raised in such unnatural environments become more and more apparent. But after all, what's most important is the feelings of the homosexuals, and not the well-being of the children adopted into those arrangements. Because in liberal America, the most important thing is to keep pretending that there are no differences between genders, sexual orientations, races, or religions that matter.

Well, if a bunch of politicans sign on to something, then by all means we should go along. No need to think for oneself, no need to actually consider - and stick to - the principles involved.

Look - it would not matter if the entire Congress, judiciary, state legislators, governors, and the UN general assembly all supported the sun rising in the west. In fact, it would still continue to rise in the east.

I support same sex marriage, which I think is a good libertarian position. It's not necessarily a conservative position. I believe that a conservative position would focus on the erosion of this central institution of our culture and consider whether govvernment policies that have fostered that erosion, such as no-fault divorce, should be changed. I think that a pro-marriage conservative position would come to recognize that same sex marriage is irrelevant to the erosion of the institution of marriage.

In the end, I really doubt that changes in government policies could restore marriage in our society. Cultural factors, such as the acceptance of adultery and unwed parenthood, together with economic factors such as the disappearing distinctions between the roles of the sexes in the workplace, mean that the "old" model of marriage no longer commands social allegiance. Where a "new" model would come from, God only knows.

If advocates of "same-sex marriage" were really interested in equality and fairness, then they would promote laws to make it legal for gay men to conceive and bear children. It is grossly unfair that only women can be mothers.

My youngest sister is gay. She thinks gays that want to get married are nuts. She has a nice life. A house in Alabama and a house in Tennessee. Makes a good living as a college professor. Why should she risk all that by getting married is her position. You can be a self-sufficient, independent adult and still have a close, living relationship.

Of course, this doens't mean she's opposed to SSM being legal. She just doesn't plan to participate. Much like I don't plan to participate in heterosexual marriage although I'm strictly heterosexual (at the moment).

I support same sex marriage. I support it because I think homosexuality is okay. At the same time, entirely separate from the non-discrimination rationale, I can see the positive (from a conservative perspective) effects of gay marriage. There will be social pressure on gays to become square, to have a nice solid home, to work lame jobs and worry about a mortgage and get involved in PTA and so forth. The casual, carefree life of a promiscuous urban gay will become a vanishingly rare thing. It will become unacceptable, I hope.

Either that, or we're all fucked and no one expects anything of anyone else anymore.

"Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends."

Well then maybe the government shouldn't make any laws on marriage, and simply remove them in the name of equality. When they calculating how many children are born out of wedlock, or living without fathers in their homes. It's not an emotional muddy thought. It's rather rational, we need both a mother and father present in a child's life. If we can't objectively measure that through marriage public policy, because by law its discriminates.

There is always a Greater Equality theory gestating somewhere inside the womb of America.

Jon M. Huntsman Jr. seems to find it grotesque that conservatives are unwilling to author some paternal claims. So, while in full possession of the autonomy of authorship, Huntsman is popping out a string of words that he determined to be worthy of a place in the pages of the Great American Experience.

Godfather's comments pretty well sum up my position--its the difference between a libertarian and a conservative position--and while I count myself in both camps, on the issue of SSM the libertarian in me says yes.

When some of the wussiest people in the country who try to lay claim to the Republican label are the only ones on the list, you haven't got much going.

T]he presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform

No, they were always this squishy, particularly Christie Whitman.

Why isn't Huntsman more influential?

Possibly because even most RINOs see him as a turncoat.

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

There is no tradition of homosexual marriage in this country. This whole issue is about exploitation.

Andy R. said...

I've got nothing against same-sex marriage but the term "marriage equality" makes me want to puke.

STD rates still exist in Massachusetts... We have lowered the death rate though.

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/cdc/aids/std-surveillance-2010.pdf

"Of those cities and towns where HIV infections were diagnosed between 2007-2009, the majority had rates of under 10 per 100,000 population. Provincetown had the highest rate of HIV infection diagnosis at greater than 385 per100,000 population."

""The loss of the younger demographic — that's not news really at this point," said Wendy Northcross, chief economic officer of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce. "It's a call to action to the Cape that we need to pay attention to that. If we get too out of balance, it creates problems for our economic base."

Every town on Cape Cod saw their under-18 populations decrease. Bourne saw an 11 percent decline, the least, while Eastham had the most severe loss — 35 percent of its school-age population."

I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I think it is self evident that it is not a self evident right. Something that fifty years ago everyone in the world, including homosexuals, thought was an absurd idea is not a self evident right.....I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but it is more a matter of mores than of morals. Some women feel compelled to shave their pubic hair, and other women embrace veils and scarves. You could tie yourself into a pretzel trying to elucidate the underlying moral principle to any of this. Ultimately, it's just what women in a particular society at a particular time choose to do.....My own intstincts favor the western model. Liberation is worth a certain amount of decadence. Some people think belly button bling is a sign of decadence and others argue that scarves are a form of repression. Whatever. I have more reservations about women in veils than women with tats. Gay marriage is probably a step towards equality and decadence, but that's our civilization.

The sands have shifted many times throughout my life about what I'm supposed to think and do to prove that I "like gays."

The gay marriage crap won't end that cycle.

What's next, AndyR? Althouse?

What do I have to do next to prove that I "like gays?"

There's always some new line of bullshit. What's it going to to be?

In England and Canada, the new line of bullshit is an assault on freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Funny how this gay cause of the month thing keeps moving in that direction, huh?

"Each summer P-town hosts a variety of gay-oriented extravaganzas, such as this recent Couples Weekend and Carnival week, famous for revealing costumes, drag queens and public sex. The excesses at these events get on some straight people's nerves, but the town relies on the millions of tourist dollars that the festivals generate. But Barbara Rushmore, who's lived in Provincetown for forty years, says the atmosphere has gone too far.

The last straw for Rushmore was a so-called "video peep show" for gay men, which a businessman proposed in 1998. Rushmore pushed for and eventually won a town bylaw that says adult entertainment stores and nude performances can't be located within 500 feet of a school or playground, among other things. "

Nelson and her husband John are leading a petition drive to restore some of the zoning restrictions. John Nelson insists that having an adult entertainment zoning bylaw doesn't make he and his wife anti-gay. "

"Mahan: "The illusion of straight and gay people living together and happy and everyone's understanding, was an illusion."

Provincetown's high-profile gay identity may also make life harder for gay teens who attend the high school. Scott Fitzmaurice is the Executive Director of the Cape and Islands Gay and Straight Youth Alliance, an organization that holds tolerance seminars at high schools and social events for questioning teens. Fitzmaurice believes that Provincetown High School is unfriendly to gay kids.

Fitzmaurice: "Provincetown is actually a very hard place to come out if you are in school. It's probably one of the most homophobic schools on the Cape. I'm going out on a limb saying that, but I think it's true."

Fitzmaurice says he bases this view on comments he's heard from gay students in the area but the Principal of Provincetown High School, Ed Boxer, strongly denies the charge. "

It's not important whether this .1%of the population (that is gay and wants to be married) can get married, and I don't care if they do or don't.

But I don't want to be browbeaten into believing the fantasy that a two guy marriage is in the same exact category of things that a man/woman marriage is. This is what the PC crowd and gays insist. It's not sufficient to have exactly the same rights. But we must make believe it's exactly the same thing, and call it by exactly the same name.

Even if you call a dog's tail a leg, everyone knows it only has four real legs.

There are many kinds of conservatism, but 'connect[ing] marriage equality with free market capitalism' probably isn't the way to find common ground among them.

For some (but generally not free market conservatives), the objective of a conservative approach to gov't is to preserve and transmit the moral and social values that (in their view) are essential to a well-ordered society. That view has a long pedigree, some of it idealistic (Plato, St Augustine) and some highly pragmatic (Machiavelli). Its adherents are likely to talk about the need to strengthen marriage and the nuclear family (endangered institutions today, as Ch Murray has shown), to support family formation and child rearing, and the like. What makes that view 'conservative' is the skepticism (I'm being polite) that new views about sexuality or abstract notions of equality will lead to a better social order if they are allowed to trump age-old values and institutions. That those age-old values and institutions come with the imprimatur of equally old religious beliefs and practices adds to the skepticism.

RH Hardin gets at that idea in the thread above (at least I think he does), suggesting that there is "a literature of marriage that doesn't work for same sex" marriage. But that view doesn't necessarily reject gay unions or gay families, or social arrangements to recognize them. It does reject the idea that there are no differences between the two, and wants to keep the institution of marriage as it has been while accepting new structures for new (more accurately, newly accepted) arrangements.

None of that seems to qualify as "the go-with-your-heart, emotion-is-the-answer approach" that Ann says is "what leads so many people to oppose same-sex marriage." Instead, (whether you agree with it or not), it seems coherent and thought-out. It's a view that has a strong streak of communitarianism to it (something else free market types may find unconfortable, given their emphasis on individual automony), and balances both social values and individual freedoms without ignoring either.

I suppose that if marriage related statutes were declared null and void, people could incorporate as LLP's or LLC's or whatever they call those things, so that they would be effectively "married," but under incorporation related statutes, so they would not have those insensitive words "married" and "marriage" hanging over them.

I suspect many of the Republicans who are signing on to this realize that their best hope politically is that the Supreme Court rules in favor of nationwide marriage equality and this becomes a settled issue.

It's clearly now a divise wedge issue for the Republican Party and they are going to have an extremely difficult time finessing this in upcoming elections. The country will be punishing Republicans who come out in opposition to gay marriage, but the Religious Right is not going to let Republicans get away with endorsing equality.

A Supreme Court decision would let Republican politicians punt on this in 2016, by acknowledging it's a settled matter. If not, you know the media is going to hammer the Republican candidate as a bigot if he comes out against equality.

Everyone knows that marriage equality is coming to America, best to do it quickly and nationally now, Republicans should want, rather than fighting and losing repeatedly at the state level.

Andy R. said... I suspect many of the Republicans who are signing on to this realize that their best hope politically is that the Supreme Court rules in favor of nationwide marriage equality and this becomes a settled issue.

Yes a "settled issue" just like abortion.

It will be totally "settled" when people who want to marry 2 spouses start suing too.

Jay, the arguments do have merits in favor of marriage, but people don't value those arguments. It's not about a merit of an argument rather how much someone doesn't want to be wrongly labeled a bigot.

Also, to pre-empt the (well-meaning, I'm sure) concerns about the Democratic coalition: "Some of the sharpest swings in acceptance come among African-Americans and suburbanites. In 2009, less than a third of blacks and 37% of Americans living in the suburbs said they approved of gay marriage. A majority of both of those groups now favor the unions."

It's clearly now a divise wedge issue for the Republican Party and they are going to have an extremely difficult time finessing this in upcoming elections. The country will be punishing Republicans who come out in opposition to gay marriage, but the Religious Right is not going to let Republicans get away with endorsing equality.

Yes, because 41 states have outlawed it and only 2 voted for its approval.

Big margin there. Can you say 20 to 1?

WSJ/NBC Poll: Majority Now Backs Gay Marriage

This is the same NBC that just hired David Axelrod as a "commentator".

Some of the sharpest swings in acceptance come among African-Americans and suburbanites. In 2009, less than a third of blacks and 37% of Americans living in the suburbs said they approved of gay marriage. A majority of both of those groups now favor the unions.

Considering a small minority of blacks are suburban, it doesn't mean much.

I also didn't see a party breakdown among respondents.

30 states voted

The times they are a changing.

And right after Dylan wrote that, the Republicans began dominating the government for 40 years.

Less government means states should be getting out of the regulating marriage business.

72% of blacks are born to single moms, and more than 50% of Hispanics (more than 25% of whites and about 12% of Asians). Overall, 40% of kids are born to single moms.

There's no need for the state to regulate marriage. Let people be free to define their own relationships.

The conservative case is less government involvement. Neither Jon Huntsman or the people opposing same-sex marriage are conservatives. They believe in government involvement. They are no better than Democrats.

POLLS: MARRIAGE EQUALITY SUPPORT STRONG IN SWING STATESThe Washington Post conducted polling in the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, and found support for marriage equality to be quite strong. A majority of voters in Florida (54-33) and Ohio (52-37) believe it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, as do a plurality (49-40) in Virginia. The Post notes that these numbers contradict the wide margins by which anti-equality constitutional amendments passed in all three states over the past decade , but unsurprisingly, young people consistently support the freedom to marry at higher rates.

My message is for the moderate Republicans, if any of them still exist. Supporting marriage equality is the right thing to do, and it will be good for you politically. I realize that there are a bunch of cranky bigots around here whose views are largely untethered from reality. As much as they want the Republican Party to be known for fighting an unsuccessful rear-guard action against marriage equality, it's the wrong thing to do, and will be bad for your party.

Now is the time to tell them that they and their bigotry are not welcome in your party.

My message is for the moderate Republicans, if any of them still exist. Supporting insert liberal position here is the right thing to do, and it will be good for you politically because no one should stand for anything.

"Now is the time to tell them that they and their bigotry are not welcome in your party."

You and your bigotry would never be welcome at any party I would be party to.

I'd leave it at that (with apologies to Groucho Marx) except for making the observation that bigotry in the way YOU use it seems to be synonymous with disapproval. Its not. I think and have thought from the first of your postings here that what you want has no direct connection with equality and that SSM is nothing but a sham to you.

What you obviously want is APPROVAL. Approval of your lifestyle and self-indulgence. Why you need it should be taken up with whatever disapproving forces in your life that generated or promoted your insecurity rather than ask us to see you as any sort of victim of bigotry.

Gays will still be sad about something, and there will be things in life that make them unhappy, once they get this bauble.

Gay marriage won't fix that.

Gays have always been unhappy about something, every day of my life. Pointed headed intellectual fag hags and gay activists have trotted out one thing after another that's supposed to fix the "gay problem," but it never does. The "gay problem" is always the bad mens' fault, and fixing the bad mens' attitude is supposed to cure the problem.

Everybody's unhappy about something. Everybody wishes they had something they don't have. Why we blame somebody for gays' unhappiness is a mystery to me.

Caving in to this demand won't cure what's ailing gays. They'll still be unhappy about something, and they'll still blame it on the bad mens. The "gay problem" will remain and it will still be the bad mens' fault, and the bitching and nagging will start all over again.

The fix is for gays and fag hags to stop nagging and bitching. I don't see that happening, so I expect the cycle to continue eternally.

I try to also use the language of "marriage equality" rather than only "gay marriage" because it recognizes that one answer for marriage equality might be no marriage for anyone.

As long as we have marriage, it needs to be available for gay people too. If we decide to do away with state marriage, that would probably be fine with me too.

What doesn't make any sense is when people oppose gay marriage specifically on the grounds that government shouldn't be involved with marriage. As long as we have straight marriage, we should have gay marriage too, and if we want to eliminate both of them, then we can.

Okay, it's hard to stay away with so much odor emanating from a thread...

Andy R ...would you please give your succinct definition of just what "marriage equality" is since you use the term repeatedly?

Do you support, or at least willingly accept, the U.S. tax code differentiation between single and married as it impacts adjust gross incomes, single or married, with head-of-household status foreclosed to married folks? Or will that issue be next due to non-procreativity matter I mentioned earlier. Would that "household" issue be offset of gay couple adopt children?

Does "Marriage equality" include polygamy and polyandry, as has been asked here several times, without answer?

Since we are about re-defining a concept pillar to post, is it about universal equivalency or is it just ...hetero breeders or gay/lesbian fornicators?

Or could it include all affectionate or compassionate cohabitation? If not, how do you define "love"...what are the critical elements?

Details man, provide some .... everything is less fun when details are required. Step up man, be the advocate! Clarify! Don't just say yes or no, define both.

Make a case, instead of just argue and pot shoot and cite irrelevant popularity polls. At least our hostess has made a case for her viewpoint.

If you memory serves you at all, you should recall I have already said I don't give a rat's tinker one way or the other...but I'm curious about the details the advocacy has considered in total.

Scott M: No one advocated SSM has ever sufficiently explained to me why the legal removal of the one-man/one-woman structure doesn't open the door for state-recognized polygamy.

From a pure "equality is the only goal" perspective, it sort of does, but not completely. You could certainly argue that there is a more rational basis for the discrimination in that case, because of the fact that a one on one union is clear cut and simple, and we already have a legal structure based on it (the laws for hetrosexual marriage are now written in mostly a gender-neutral fashion, so it is effectively no change to those laws to apply them to 2 men or 2 women), while a change to who knows how many people would be far more complex and would require a new structure.

For example, when a married man dies without a will, his stuff goes to his spouse - doesn't matter whether spouse is male or female. But if the man had two spouses, you've got a fight on your hands. So, basically, you've got a similar arguement to the arguments that justify some sex discrimination based on the actual differences between men and women - that you've got to apply some reasonableness to decide how these things will actually work.

That said, yes, if SSM is applied by judicial fiat, it is likely that the same arguments will eventually apply to polygamy. This is one reason that I strongly prefer the policy arguments for gay marriage as adopted by legislatures, based on the fact that such marriages would be better for socity as a whole.

AndyR: I try to also use the language of "marriage equality" rather than only "gay marriage" because it recognizes that one answer for marriage equality might be no marriage for anyone.

No marriage for anyone is an incredibly stupid idea, proposed only by those with no understanding of the legal systems that go into marriage, divorce, child custody and support, and probate. People forge the relationships, intermingle their property, and create dependencies. It is absolutely necessary that there be a legal structure to handle it when they separate, become incompetent, or die.

Marriage equality is a troublesome term. Kind of like "pro choice" a now faded term that hid more than it disclosed. We need a new term for homosexual so-called marriage. Actually that description would do but it is probably too polarizing. Maybe we could use "Sodomariage", "Pseudomarriage",Madeupomarriage", 'Perversomarriage", "Fakeomarriage"," Misuseof organsomarriage". Let's have a naming contest.

I agree with you. But if we are to have diversity, they why can't we have different names for different relationships and public policy to address them with their different needs.

If gay relationships are truly accepted in society, then it should have a name of its own and their relationships should be able to stand on their own merits without marriage.

Also there is the interest of children, children should have a right to their mother and father. Is it really that bigoted to say, we should have a relationship that brings the two together and meets this specific need?

While there are multiple reasons why a heterosexual couple may be childless, it is most reasonable way to define marriage as one man/one woman without intrusive use of fertility testing or demands to produce a child.

Also, I love how explicit and un-self-conscious Republicans are about adopting a separate but equal solution. (It should be the same rights but we'll call it something different!) It's like they both want to lose the debate and suffer political harm over this issue. America is never going to accept separate but equal, and they're going to be disgusted with you for proposing it.

BTW I consider myself a moderate on spending. I actually like and approve many social programs in my state (Massachusetts) and I don't mind paying taxes. For instance one third of all Democrats identify themselves as being pro-life.

The Church does not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality. Every person, created in the image and likeness of God, possesses a dignity and worth that demands respect and compassion from one’s brothers and sisters in the human family. While the origins of same-sex attraction are not yet scientifically clear, most of those who are oriented do no choose this sexual attraction. A man or woman cannot be blamed or condemned merely because he or she experiences such an attraction….

The Church must condemn homosexual acts because they are contrary to God’s plan expressed in natural law and in divine revelation. The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent in God’s creative design for human race. “Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complimentary, they can come together in union that is open to the possibility of life"

"“Same-sex attraction is a source of great suffering for many men and women who call themselves ‘gay.’ Often misunderstood and rejected by their families and friends, they fear they will not be able to live normal, productive lives. As they retreat into enclaves of like-minded persons, the homosexual subculture provides an apparent safe haven, but it does not really solve the problem.”

Aridog: Why does it have to be just hetero breeders or gay/lesbian fornicators?

No one, on the advocacy side, has answered that very simple question.

I'd be happy to answer, but I'm afraid that I don't understand what you are asking. Be more clear, and I'll take a stab.

Lyssa....it may be crude, but my comment is clear enough.

To clarify further: WHY is "marriage equality" limited to heterosexual couples capable of procreation [without regard to whether they do or not]and gay/lesbian couples capable only of sex acts and affection?

Where do affectionate heterosexual cohabiting couples come in, or same sex but not sexually attracted, sometimes compassionate, couples fit in here? Is this truly about "equality" in total, or just for special folks? In others words, potential breeders and same sex sodominists of one persuasion or another.

Is a state or local license necessary, or a church ceremony or a judicial ceremony, for "equality" under the law, where some benefit is obtained, and provided by cohabiting households that do not utilize the amount of government resources that single dwellers do?

Specifically, what does "marriage equality" mean...presuming you can even constrain it to unions of just two people. How about head of the household tax status, which is lost in marriage...would the "marriage equality" advocates also seek to rescind that?

Renee: If gay relationships are truly accepted in society, then it should have a name of its own and their relationships should be able to stand on their own merits without marriage.

Also there is the interest of children, children should have a right to their mother and father. Is it really that bigoted to say, we should have a relationship that brings the two together and meets this specific need?

I get what you're saying, Renee, but I think that you're missing the fact that, like it or not (and I definitely would say that there are positives and negatives), the nature of marriage in our culture has changed. Child-rearing is just one of many reasons that people get married, and one of many issues involved in marriages. The two most bitter and ugly divorces that I've litigated in my career both involved childless couples.

If we, as a society, could agree that marriage is about child-rearing, then I would agree with you, and suggest that maybe we should have a different name and framework for non-procreative couples. Perhaps there's even room for pro-family groups to create a new framework based on the old one. But the old version of marriage, the one based on traditional gender roles, full financial dependancy, and procreation, as an institution and cultural imperative (I'm not talking about for individual couples, for whom it is frequently still alive and functioning), is ship that sailed quite a while back.

Just for the record, though, I've never used the term "bigot" in discussions on this topic, and I'm at least troubled by same-sex couples raising children (less troubled than I am by the idea of single people raising children, though).

Oh, Lyssa...please spare me the answer that cohabiting couples can just go get married. Why should they if they aren't sexually active or interested in procreation, just affection and mutual support, removing one less potential household to support with added infrastructure.

Moreover, the study found that the level of support for Proposition 8 among African Americans was nowhere close to the NEP exit poll 70 percent figure. The study looked at pre- and post-election polls and conducted a sophisticated analysis of precinct-level voting data from five California counties with the highest African-American populations (Alameda (Oakland), Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco).[1] Based on this, it concludes that the level of African-American support for Proposition 8 was in the range of 57-59 percent.

Aridog, I don't use the term "marriage equality" because I find it silly and incredibly simple-minded, so perhaps your question is not really aimed at me. However, I would say that, to the extent that I think I can answer, I think that your assumptions are incorrect.

The people that you describe as being left out of the marriage issue certainly can get married if they choose, or they can choose not to. Society offers certain benefits to married couples because they form a lifelong (theoretically, of course) bond of partnership and interdependence, which benefits society in a lot of ways. These other relationships can benefit society, too, but there is no simple definition of them (is a co-habitating couple together for life or until the rent comes due?) But if the legal structure of marriage is there for them, but they purposefully choose not to enter into it, I'm not sure why I should be concerned about the fact that they don't get the benefits of being married.

Aridog: Oh, Lyssa...please spare me the answer that cohabiting couples can just go get married. Why should they if they aren't sexually active or interested in procreation, just affection and mutual support,

They can do what they wish. No one ever said that you have to have sex or procreate to be married. Though, in my experience, most people who don't screw around aren't likely to stay together for long, and the marriage framework is based around a (ideally) lifelong union.

This "gay problem," once resolved will simply morph into a new "gay problem."

Gays always blame their unhappiness on the bad mens. The women get teary eyed and buy the bullshit. The new "gay problem" will be equally horrifying, and you'll be a "bigot" if you aren't in favor of fixing it.

But if the legal structure of marriage is there for them, but they purposefully choose not to enter into it ...

1.) There are conditions, especially tax related, that make marriage financial suicide, no matter how much you love someone.

2.) I didn't specify opposite sex couples cohabiting, I included them, but did NOT specify it as the condition at hand. I think you missed that. There are both male and female couples who stay together for years for common support and compassion and who do NOT cost society any more than married couples.

3.) If it isn't about "equality" as the whiners say...then there's no dispute.

I have repeatedly said here that I don't give a damn either way anymore. When I hear someone assert their right to equality, I automatically presume they're asserting it for a closed group and no more about equality than whether the moon is blue cheese.

Shit...I am sorry, and apologize, for getting back in to this thread...and this nonsense topic per se. It is 100% bullshit in bad faith top to bottom and solely about satisfying a closed group by supposed equivalence to another closed group.

Aridog, again, I simply don't understand the problem that you are concerned about. Either get married, and accept that there are pros and cons to it, or don't, and accept the pros and cons to that. Why should I be sad that you can't have the best of both worlds? Maybe the pros and cons of it should be adjusted, but that has nothing to do with the SSM issue.

I also don't understand why you continually beat the drum of "equality" at me when I have been more than clear that that is not what I'm arguing. Makes me think that you don't really care about the question you're asking and you just want to bleat on about it.

Chances Andy's father wants anything to do with him I would put at somewhere around Obama ever taking blame for one of his failures, around zero. Or perhaps your mother was the one ashamed? At any rate, your little family pathos certainly has made for one angry bitter little homo.

Large segments of society are never going to celebrate the fact that you like to have sex with other men, deal with it. Basing your entire identity on the approval of others is a sad way to live.

Lots of people dissaprove of your lifestyle and think you are a disgusting deviant who should be shunned by right-thinking society.

I also don't understand why you continually beat the drum of "equality" at me ...

Pardon me? It was YOU who asked me to "bleat on" and clarify...otherwise I no longer care. I have said so on this subject multiple times...and occasionally pick at the hypocrisy of those who argue for "equality" when they show up ... I did NOT approach you or ask you anything.

Very true. Because it is not about equal rights or the sham of claiming that SSM is not poisonous. At least in Andy's case, it is all about wanting approval for his self-indulgent lifestyle. He specifically said on this site in response to a question that if he feels the urge, he'd go out and have sex that weekend. Just wasn't sure the urge would be there. Dogs have more self-respect.

"When it is imposed by judicial fiat they will come up with something else."

Andy has already hinted at what that next step is and you nail it here:

"Most likely the demand that all religions perform these marriages or lose any tax exempt status or any contracts with the government."

Every religion and every other institution from the Boy Scouts to the military must not just accept Andy's lifestyle. They must APPROVE of it and be legally forced to do so irregardless of the principled opposition of the members.

Above all, Andy is a coward. His ideas spring from feeding his appetites and a coward doesn't endanger that. If Andy were not a coward and actually held the principles he claims to, he would at the minimum be organizing and protesting daily in front of the Saudi embassy and every CAIR office in the US instead of the Chick-A-Fil.

I wonder if we had a cultural term for gay relationships, we wouldn't be having this gay marriage debate. We would simply create new family law in regards to that new terminology. Other cultures have terms for their gay relationships.

While Laws Like Proposition 8 Are Consonant With Sincerely-Held Beliefs, That Does Not Sustain Their Constitutionality

Although amici firmly believe that society should proceed cautiously before adopting significant changes to beneficial institutions, we do not believe that society must remain indifferent to facts. This Court has not hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem them insufficient to survive an equal protection challenge. The bases on which the proponents of laws like Proposition 8 rely are the products of similar thinking that can no longer pass muster when the evidence as it now stands is viewed rationally, not through the lens of belief though sincerely held.

I like that part about the importance of facts, which is unfortunately likely to go down with the Althouse crew about as well as a lead balloon.

Rather, we have concluded that the institution of marriage, its benefits and importance to society, and the support and stability it gives to children and families are promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This probably foreshadows the next "civil rights" battle on this front: federally mandated equal access to adoption in what is now decided state-by-state.

So far no one has offered convincing evidence demonstrating why the state has an interest in gay relationships. When gays first came out of the closet, their argument was that sexual practices between consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own business so long as no one else is hurt. Fair enough. At the time, everyone agreed that the straight people will leave gays alone if gays will leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately the gays have broken this understanding. The public bullying, shaming and moralizing by the left to force everyone else to accept gay marriage is extremely ugly.

"he end of the same-sex marriage debate does not, however, settle the problem of marriage in America. Not remotely. Among the 95% to 97% of Americans who are not gay, the institution of marriage continues to weaken -- with ominous consequences for the next generation.

About 40% of all the babies born in the United States are born to unmarried women. Just about everybody agrees that this is a worrying development.As candidate Barack Obama told a Chicago church in 2008:"(C)hildren who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

-------------------

Give gay people marriage, so they will shut up, so we can create public policy around marriage to address heterosexual issues, like a child having its mother and father.

Oh, good heavens Aridog. You complained that no one supporting SSM would answer your question, then when I tried to answer it in good faith, you continually try to "argue" with statements that I didn't make. You're simply ridiculous. If you wanted an answer to your question, you got one. Grow up and try to accept it.